[Cumbria] Legal development of free software

[Nick Hill]

Michael Saunders wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Nick Hill wrote:
> 
> 
>>1) IBM is a large corporation. It has deep pockets. It has a large
>>patent portfolio.
> 
> 
> Yes, that is true. And many followers of the whole SCO debacle are
> pointing at IBM's colossal patent warchest -- they can no doubt
> countersue SCO into the ground.
> 
> 
>>From this, it can be seen that IBM, through these proposals, will
>>gain far more control of free software.
> 
> 
> You make interesting points and I understand what you're saying, but I
> see something wrong with this line of view:
> 
> IBM is making money off Linux, which is developed by masses of Free
> Software programmers. It's not in their interests to sweep up lots of
> patents and use it against the people developing their software; they
> destroy its value (and already have AIX as their own playground).

Agreed.

I am not suggesting that if we got to the sorry stage that we no longer 
have free software and the software projects we do have are under the 
stewardship of large patent holders, that the large patent holder 
stewarding the project will sue those developing the projects it is 
stewarding.

The important point is that control of this technological field will be 
narrowed to a few large players. It will become too dangerous to develop 
outside of an organisation which doesn't have a large patent warchest.

We will not be able to program in the public interest. We will not be 
free to express creativity freely in software. We will not be able to 
counter the imposition of control technology implemented through the 
ever strenghening corpotate-government system. Democracy is getting 
weaker, freedoms are getting fewer. Software patents will be another 
very significant step down that path.

As software-enabled devices become more ubiquitous, the control 
influenced by software patent hoarders will become stronger. As a 
society and as a body public, we do not need this control.

> 
> 
>>IBM will, effectively, inherit free software.
> 
> 
> Why would they want to? Those that have actually understood the whole
> Free Software concept, and done well from it, haven't tried to alter
> it. Red Hat releases its installers, configuration tools etc. under
> the GPL (unlike SuSE and others), because they know that giving the
> customer maximum control is best.
> 
> Similarly, IBM aren't currently offering their own distro with
> proprietary bits -- they're adding new code (and the kernel developers
> have been happy with their behaviour) and respecting the community.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not being naive; IBM is out to make money and
> some still don't like them because of their actions in the 80s. But
> it's pointless to assume that they want to somehow take control of
> open source development.
> 
> It's totally counter-productive.
> 
> At the moment, they have the 500,000 coders you mention working on
> great software. They get to package it up, sell consulting, support
> and large servers running it, and things are well.
> 
> Now, if they take the road you describe, in abusing software patents
> and trying to wrestle control of Free Software, it'd be a pointless
> move. All the talented developers would disappear. They'd be left to
> maintaining the code themselves, which is what they have now with AIX.
> 
> Same situation with BSD. A company can take the code and use it in a
> closed product, but if their enhancements never make it back into the
> main tree, the software they use as a base won't improve.
> 
> So it's not in IBM's interest to seize control. 

To clarify, when we say IBM, we are referring to any large organisation, 
with deep pockets and a patent war chest which hypothetically might 
steward a free software project to protect it from software patent 
threats. I am not using IBM as a definate label to The IBM corporation 
but an organisation sharing attributes with IBM. From now on, I will 
refer to the organisation as XYZ.

I am not speculating XYZ will sieze control by initially taking projects 
away from those working on the project. This would not be in the 
interests of anyone positively involved. In fact, I don't think they 
would do anything actively to push people away willing to do free work 
which increases their market leverage.

What I am suggesting is more subtle but just as relevant. The projects 
we currently have free would be put under such control. Such control 
would ultimately be as though they owned the project from the start. New 
projects will not be born free.


> 
> 
>>Unless apache comes under the total stewardship of a very rich
>>corporation such as IBM, it will cease to be competitive soon.
> 
> 
> People have been saying that for years.
> 
> 
>>I predict Linux as we know it, will become another SCO, under the
>>exclusive stewardship of IBM, to do with it as they wish.
> 
> 
> How can you compare a free OS to a company? Presumably you mean things 
> like OpenServer, and not SCO itself. Even then, they're worlds apart.

No, I am comparing the overall situation, not the product or company. I 
believe free software outside the paradigm which has given birth to it, 
will eventually lead to the death of a substantial body of projects.. 
Whether you think the projects are the end and the freedoms the means, 
or you think the freedoms are the end, with the projects the means, 
software patents will  create a loose-loose situation. The freedoms are 
required for the projects to exist. The project's existance gives freedoms.

> 
> 
>>IBM would benefit if the projects they are poring money into were 
>>effectively proprietary. Perhaps IBM know this already??
> 
> 
> This makes no sense. If IBM wanted to go along these lines, they 
> would've taken up FreeBSD and maintained their own closed fork.
> 
> Again, it's not in IBM's interests to do this. Assuming control of 
> Linux and OSS development would be pointless and redundant -- the 
> whole value that companies are seeing in Linux is BECAUSE it is free 
> and GPLed; the second IBM tries anything like that, it destroys the 
> inherent value in OSS and fewer people will be interested in it.
> 
> IBM have been around for a long time, and are still hugely successful. 
> They know that the market wants free, FREE software, and are not going 
> to destroy that long-term market and lose thousands of developers for 
> the tiniest of short-term gains.
> 
> I see the points you're making, but this apocalyptic scenario with IBM
> at the helm is too far-fetched and crazy for their business.
> 

XYZ will need to annexe projects to 'protect' them. Such annexing would 
appeal to the greedy instincts of a business. The freedoms and projects 
are inter-dependent. The dependency will change from a freedom-project 
to a corporation-project dependency. Such a dependency may, and in many 
cases, will fail.